 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Unilever Home & Pers. Care USA v. P.R. Beauty Supply, Inc., No. 05-1075,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a manufacturer terminated its relationship with a distributor and sought a declaration that 10 P.R. Laws Ann. § 278 (Law 75) did not apply, summary judgment was inappropriate because factual issues existed as to, inter alia, whether the distributor was distributing the manufacturer's products before the enactment of Law 75.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gonsalves, No. 04-2316,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Objection that it was improper for the judge to allow the jury to convict if it found that the adulteration had been carried out not by defendant personally but by others at his direction was without merit because a defendant who directed wrongdoing was guilty as a principal without regard to aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mastera, No. 05-1249,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not plainly err when it concluded that defendant conviction for breaking and entering in the daytime qualified as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) because defendant's counsel in a sentencing memorandum, more or less conceded that the conviction was for breaking into a home.
|
|||||
| Montijo-Reyes v. United States, No. 05-1353,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where property owners alleged that the U.S. negligently discharged dredged material on a beach, which proximately caused damages to their homes, the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(a), applied to bar subject matter jurisdiction because there was no causal link between a violation of any law and the harm.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garza, No. 04-2400,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's due process rights were not violated by the destruction of drugs and tape recordings relating to a drug deal because there was no showing that the destruction due to a lapse of time was conducted in bad faith, even though it was authorized by police.
|
|||||
| Attrezzi, LLC v. Maytag Corp., No. 05-2098, No. 05-2181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that evidence was sufficient to sustain a jury's verdict that an appliance manufacturer willfully infringed an LLC's trademark when it used the Italian word "Attrezzi" to label a line of products it sold, and it affirmed the district court's judgment awarding the LLC $ 10,800 in damages and $ 239,675 in attorneys' fees.
|
|||||
| Jin Dong Zeng v. Gonzales, No. 04-1694, No. 05-1276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a Chinese citizen was denied asylum, sought due to the Chinese government's forced sterilization of his wife, because he did not prove either that his wife was sterilized or that such sterilization had been involuntary, the BIA properly denied the citizen's motion to reopen because the evidence presented with the motion was not new.
|
|||||
| Goodwin v. C.N.J., Inc., No. 04-2050,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Installer's request for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12188 was moot under U.S. Const. art. III because the installer's death divested an injunction to bar future acts of discrimination of all utility since intervening events eliminated any reasonable anticipation that he would be faced, in the future, with a recurrence of the alleged harm.
|
|||||
| United States v. Diaz, No. 03-1868,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A plain error in sentencing defendant under the mandatory guidelines affected her substantial rights and required resentencing because a lesser sentence under the advisory guidelines was likely given the district court's characterization of the sentence as very severe and its concern with defendant's abusive relationship and mental state.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
